o 
o 
o 
in 


THE  MASSACHUSETTS  PEACE  SOCIETY 


AMERICA'S 
INTERNATIONAL   IDEALS 


BY 


JAY  WILLIAM)  HUDSON 
v^ — - — , 

PROFESSOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  MISSOURI 
>IRBCTOR  EDUCATION  DEPARTMENT,  MASSACHUSETTS  PEACE  SOCIETY 


THE  MASSACHUSETTS  PEACE  SOCIETY 
31  BEACON  STREET,  BOSTON,  MASS. 


Gil 


THE  MASSACHUSETTS  PEACE  SOCIETY 


_AMERICA'S 
INTERNATIONAL   IDEALS^ 


BY 


JAY  WILLIAM  [HUDSON 

PROFESSOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  MISSOURI 
DIRECTOR  EDUCATION  DEPARTMENT,  MASSACHUSETTS  PEACE  SOCIETY 


THE  MASSACHUSETTS  PEACE  SOCIETY 
31  BEACON  STREET,  BOSTON,  MASS. 


POOLE  PRINTING  COMPANY 

251  CAUSEWAY  STREET 

BOSTON,  MASS. 


£110 

Hi 


AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 


c  T  MAGINE  Napoleon  in  the  full  tide  of  any  of  his 
successful  campaigns  stopping  to  explain  to  some 
-*•  neutral  Power  why  he  had  destroyed  some  archi 
tectural  treasures  in  the  wrath  of  war!"  exclaims  a  news 
paper  writer  in  a  recent  article.  And  yet,  as  this  writer 
proceeds  to  state,  European  nations  now  at  war  have 
taken  the  trouble  to  make  persistent  appeals  to  the 
American  people  for  their  good  will  and  justification. 
From  the  very  first,  not  only  the  rulers,  but  the  enlight 
ened  scholars  of  the  various  countries,  have  done  their 
utmost  to  persuade  the  public  opinion  of  the  United 
States  of  the  righteousness  of  their  cause,  the  nobility 
of  their  ideals.  This  literature  of  justification,  consist 
ing  not  merely  of  tracts  and  magazine  articles,  but  of 
hundreds  of  books,  has  grown  so  astoundingly  volumi 
nous  that  it  is  doubtful  that  any  single  person  could  read 
it  through  in  his  lifetime.  Indeed,  this  war  among  the 
authors  of  the  various  nations  who  are  trying  to  justify 
their  respective  countries  is  being  waged  on  almost  as 
great  a  scale  as  the  war  waged  by  means  of  guns  and 
ships  and  aeroplanes.  This  war  of  ideas  has  been  waged 
so  earnestly  and  to  such  length  that  one  American  news 
paper  wittily  asks,  "Why  not  stop  the  war  and  let  the 
German  and  English  authors  fight  it  out?" 

However,  this  appeal  of  the  warring  nations  of  Europe 
to  the  American  people  is  a  phenomenon  of  incalculable 
significance  both  to  America  and  to  the  world.  First  of 

[3] 


M 


all,  it  means  that  the  great  American  public  which  is 
reading  this  literature  is  receiving  a  practical  education 
which  enables  it  more  than  ever  to  think  in  terms  of 
world  problems  and  international  outlooks.  Never  be 
fore  has  the  average  man  of  any  country  so  had  his 
vision  widened  by  a  compelled  attention  to  the  questions 
of  international  welfare  and  ideals.  Every  phase  of  the 
fundamental  principles  involved  in  the  relations  of 
nations  and  races  has  been  emphasized  and  brought  to 
his  notice  and  has  become  part  of  his  daily  thought  and 
conversation.  This  daily  reaction  in  intellectual  terms 
upon  a  great  international  situation  is  perhaps  the  most 
pervasive  and  important  educational  force  that  has  ever 
molded  the  popular  mind  of  any  country.  It  will  con 
tribute  mightily  to  the  formation  of  the  character  not 
only  of  the  American  of  this  generation,  but  of  the 
American  of  the  future. 

Second,  this  appeal  to  the  American  public  is  signifi 
cant  as  showing  that  civilization  has  at  last  reached  that 
stage  where  certain  codes  of  righteousness  inherent  in 
the  popular  convictions  are  to  be  reckoned  with.  Whether 
any  nation  in  Europe  is  really  justified  is  not  the  point: 
the  great  and  illuminating  fact  is  that  they  seek  justifi 
cation.  In  other  words,  the  world  has  come  to  a  stage 
of  progress  where  it  is  so  well  recognized  that  might 
alone  does  not  make  right,  that  might  must  perforce 
approve  itself  on  grounds  of  morality  before  the  con 
science  of  the  world.  This  is  a  phenomenon  new  in  the 
history  of  war;  and,  to  those  who  see  deeply,  it  means 
the  beginning  of  the  end  of  the  attempt  to  solve  great 
problems  by  the  use  of  mere  force.  For  Europe  so  much 
as  confesses  that  mere  force  and  the  victory  that  comes 
therefrom  is  not  sufficient;  force  in  itself  can  no  longer 

[4] 


be  justified  by  the  mere  glory  of  its  prowess.  No,  the 
battle  is  lifted  at  last  to  the  higher  plane  where  reason 
is  the  only  justification  for  the  right, —  the  very  reason 
which,  in  the  logic  of  its  growing  supremacy,  shall  finally 
supplant  force  entirely  as  the  court  of  great  issues  between 
peoples. 

Third,  this  appeal  to  American  public  opinion  is  es 
pecially  significant  because  it  recognizes  that  America 
has  a  unique  part  in  world  welfare  and  world  progress. 
America  the  conscience  of  the  world!  Now,  a  conscience 
when  appealed  to,  must  answer.  It  is  not  passive;  it 
has  unequivocal  obligations  to  utter  truth  and  to  guide 
to  righteous  action.  This  is  America's  supreme  respon 
sibility  at  the  present  time:  to  answer  the  innumerable 
appeals  to  her  sense  of  fair  play  and  her  ideals  with  an 
unambiguous  message  to  Europe's  warring  Powers. 
Even  if  America  had  not  been  appealed  to  at  all  by  these 
Powers,  she  ought,  as  the  greatest  of  neutral  nations, 
to  realize  her  grave  responsibility  and  supreme  oppor 
tunity  to  do  all  that  she  can  to  aid  the  world  to  bring 
order  out  of  chaos  and  to  see  to  it  that  this  order  shall 
be  a  new  order,  in  terms  of  which  the  war  system  shall 
be  seen  to  be  irrational  and  impossible. 

To  some  minds  it  seems  perilous  for  the  American 
people  to  assume  any  definite  responsibilities  in  the 
present  conflict,  since  anything  that  the  American  people 
might  say  or  do  would  seem  likely  to  involve  a  breach 
of  the  neutrality  which^we 'have*  been"  trying  to  observe. 
But  this  is  wholly  to  misunderstand  what  neutrality 
means.  America  is  indeed  anxious  that  her  possibilities 
of  service  to  the  warring  nations  shall  not  be  imperilled 
by  her  taking  sides  in  favor  of  a  nation,  or  group  of 
nations,  either  through  her  government  or  through  her 

[5] 


public  opinion.  But  such  neutrality  with  regard  to 
countries  does  not  at  all  involve  a  passive  neutrality 
with  regard  to  great  principles  of  social  welfare,  which 
are  being  imperilled  not  by  any  one  nation  in  particular, 
but  by  the  very  existence  of  the  European  conflict, 
especially  as  viewed  in  terms  of  its  historic  causes  and 
possible  results. 

For  ages  the  race  has  been  struggling  toward  what  we 
somewhat  vaguely  call  civilization.  This  struggle  has 
meant  the  gradual  realization  of  certain  fundamental 
desires  and  needs  of  the  human  spirit,  the  attainment  of 
which  was  always  thought  of  as  involving  a  social  order 
in  which  the  individual  would  be  given  larger  and  larger 
opportunities  for  the  achievement  of  those  ideals  which 
alone  give  value  to  his  life.  For  the  realization  of  this 
social  order,  not  only  the  great  leaders  of  men,  but  the 
masses  have  thought  and  toiled  and  sacrificed  and  died 
ever  since  man  began  to  lift  himself  above  the  blind 
instincts  of  the  brute.  Nor  has  this  ideal  social  order 
been  merely  an  undefined  dream.  Gradually,  as  mankind 
has  grown  more  self-conscious,  it  has  gained  definite- 
ness,  until  it  has  been  seen  to  involve  the  supremacy 
of  certain  principles  without  which  any  permanent 
civilization  is  impossible.  The  race  learns  by  long  and 
arduous  experience:  and  the  emerging  of  these  principles 
themselves  into  the  mere  thoughts  of  what  might  some 
day  be  is  a  long  and  fascinating  story,  for  which  we 
have  no  time  here.  The  great  truth  to  be  made  apparent 
is  this:  these  indispensable  principles  of  human  welfare 
have  nowhere  been  more  speedily  or  more  fully  realized 
than  in  the  social  and  political  institutions  of  the  Ameri 
can  people. 

Now,  if  this  is  so,  America  has  a  unique  responsibility 

[61 


as  the  custodian  and  defender  of  these  principles.  If 
any  social  movement  or  international  complication 
happens  to  involve  the  denial  or  betrayal  of  these  princi 
ples  for  which  America  has  fought  and  for  which  her 
civilization  stands,  the  American  people  surely  cannot 
be  neutral  with  regard  to  such  a  social  movement  or 
international  complication.  Well,  at  this  present  moment 
these  principles  of  human  welfare  are  being  denied, 
betrayed,  prejudiced  and  imperilled  by  the  European 
conflict  together  with  its  significant  and  far-reaching 
influences.  Thus  America  has  a  decisive  message  to 
Europe,  not  only  in  behalf  of  her  own  ideals,  but  for 
the  sake  of  the  welfare  and  progress  of  human  beings 
everywhere.  In  standing  for  these  principles  America 
will  be  exemplifying  a  new  patriotism:  a  patriotism  not 
merely  to  a  plot  of  ground  which  we  call  our  native  land, 
but  a  patriotism  to  those  truths  upon  the  triumph  of 
which  depend  the  conservation  of  universal  progress 
and  the  security  of  the  future  of  the  world. 

What  are  these  principles  for  which  the  race  has  strug 
gled?  In  what  way  can  American  life  be  said  to  stand 
for  them?  How  has  Europe  denied  them?  And  what  is 
America's  message  to  Europe  in  view  of  this  denial? 


II 

One  thing  for  which  the  race  has  insistently  struggled 
is  the  supremacy  of  reason  in  human  affairs.  If  man  is 
not  yet  "the  rational  animal"  he  has,  at  any  rate,  striven 
to  become  more  and  more  rational.  Indeed,  one  could 
almost  define  the  progress  of  civilization  as  a  struggle 
toward  reasonableness.  Thus  the  great  philosophers  have 
been  busy  from  time  immemorial  in  trying  to  express 

[7] 


in  terms  of  reason  what  man  is  and  what  is  his  relation 
to  his  universe.  The  great  scientists  have  bent  all  their 
energies  to  a  discovery  of  the  laws  of  reason  that  govern 
all  phenomena  and  have  attempted  to  reduce  man's 
world  to  logical  order.  The  great  moralists  have  always 
appealed  to  reason  as  the  final  guide  of  human  conduct, 
.and  have  taught  us  to  see  the  illuminating  truth  that 
to  be  right  is  to  be  reasonable,  and  that  to  be  thoroughly 
reasonable  is  to  be  thoroughly  right.  Thus  civilization, 
turning  its  thought  more  and  more  upon  itself,  has  more 
and  more  endeavored  to  justify  itself  by  its  rationality. 
Thus  it  is  that  every  institution  has  had  to  defend  itself 
finally  by  convincing  the  world  of  the  logic  of  its  claims 
to  recognition.  Thus  it  is  that  the  goal  of  education 
has  been  to  teach  the  average  man  to  reason  for  himself 
that  he  might  indeed  "prove  all  things' '  and  "hold  fast 
that  which  is  good." 

If  there  is  any  country  which  more  than  any  other 
has  recognized  and  approximated  this  desire  for  the 
reign  of  reason  in  human  affairs,  it  is  the  United  States. 
Indeed,  this  is  the  fundamental  significance  of  American 
democracy.  Why  free  speech?  For  the  purpose  of 
giving  every  man  a  free  chance  of  expressing  his  reasoned 
convictions  on  all  great  issues  of  social  welfare,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  him  the  opportunity  of  freely 
hearing  the  freely  uttered  reasons  of  his  fellows.  Free 
speech  makes  possible  social  reason:  that  is  its  only 
excuse.  And  why  the  ideal  of  the  universal  ballot?  So 
that  reasoned  convictions  may  be  made  final,  operative 
and  efficient  in  deciding  the  great  social  and  political 
problems,  the  solution  of  which  means  human  progress. 
This  democracy  is  above  all  a  school  of  reason;  a  school 
more  effective  than  any  ordinary  school,  since  its  mem- 

[8] 


AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 

bers  must  perforce  suffer  through  their  own  errors  and 
thus  all  the  more  speedily  learn  to  think  intelligently 
and  cautiously  upon  those  issues  upon  which  their  happi 
ness  depends.  The  public  school  system  of  America  is 
the  greatest  system  of  education  ever  devised.  It  came 
into  being  in  order  that  a  self-governing  people  should 
achieve  the  intelligence  to  think  and  act  through  reasoned 
convictions  rather  than  prejudice  and  impulse.  Far  as 
America  is  from  realizing  the  perfect  ideal  of  Utopian 
dreamers,  she  comes  nearer  than  any  country  of  history 
to  exemplifying  what  might  be  called  an  "age  of  reason/7 
America  has  not  only  insisted  upon  the  reign  of  reason 
in  national  affairs,  but  in  the  great  problems  of  inter 
national  relations  as  well.  For  over  one  hundred  years 
there  has  been  a  growing  movement  among  American 
thinkers  of  international  repute  in  favor  of  arbitration 
and  adjudication  as  the  true  methods  of  solving  the 
difficulties  that  arise  between  nations.  Ever  since  1815, 
when  the  first  peace  society  of  the  world  was  organized 
in  America,  the  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  rational  settle 
ment  of  international  disputes  has  gained  more  and  more 
adherents  among  the  masses  of  the  people.  To-day  the 
American  organizations  that  look  toward  the  substitu 
tion  of  law  for  war  are  among  the  most  influential  and 
efficient  in  the  world.  America's  leadership  for  the 
reign  of  reason  in  international  affairs  has  been  evinced 
nowhere  more  conspicuously  than  at  the  Hague  Confer 
ences.  America's  representatives  to  these  Conferences 
were  men  who  had  attained  a  high  place  in  the  regard 
of  the  American  people.  To  the  First  Conference  were 
sent  men  of  such  signal  eminence  as  Andrew  Dickson 
White  and  Frederick  W.  Holls.  To  the  Second  Confer 
ence  were  sent  Joseph  H.  Choate  and  Gen.  Horace  Porter. 

[9] 


At  both  of  these  Conferences  the  American  representa 
tives  made  important  contributions  to  the  discussions. 
After  the  Hague  Conference  established  the  Permanent 
Court  of  Arbitration,  the  first  case  which  this  court 
had  to  decide  was  one  brought  before  it  by  the  United 
States  and  Mexico.  Thus  in  the  public  mind,  in  public 
speech,  and  in  conspicuous  deed  America  has  more  and 
more  been  the  champion  of  international  democracy, — as 
over  against  the  reign  of  autocratic  force  as  the  arbiter 
of  international  questions. 

It  is  this  principle  of  reason  in  civilization  which  the 
European  conflict  now  ruthlessly  repudiates.  First,  if 
the  issue,  whatever  it  is,  over  which  the  European  war 
is  being  fought,  is  a  rational  issue,  a  civilization  of  reason 
would  settle  that  rational  issue  by  the  only  means  that 
can  settle  issues  of  reason:  namely,  reason  itself.  But 
it  is  notorious  that  no  serious  and  concerted  attempt 
was  made  by  the  European  nations  to  settle  their  diffi 
culties  by  an  appeal  to  arbitration.  Indeed,  the  conflict 
was  precipitated  too  quickly  for  public  opinion  to  reason 
about  the  issues  at  all,  or  even  to  know  precisely  what 
the  issues  were.  Instead  of  appealing  to  reason,  which 
alone  can  settle  rational  problems,  there  was  an  imme 
diate  appeal  to  force,  which  in  itself  never  solved  a  single 
rational  problem.  But  it  may  be  objected  that  the  issues 
concerning  which  the  European  nations  are  fighting  do 
not  represent  the  sorts  of  problems  which  could  be 
decided  by  an  appeal  to  reason.  If  this  is  the  case,  then 
the  problems  themselves  are  not  rational  problems  and 
European  civilization  sins  in  going  to  war  on  account 
of  irrational  or  non-rational  impulses  and  prejudices 
rather  than  on  account  of  intelligible  and  intelligent 
ideals.  If  it  be  replied  that  not  all  European  civiliza- 

[10] 


tion  is  to  be  thus  accused,  but  only  the  selfish  aggression 
of  a  single  country  or  group  of  countries,  which  thus 
have  only  a  secondary  respect  for  a  rational  world  order, 
one  must,  of  course,  modify  his  judgment  of  European 
culture  as  a  whole  in  terms  of  this  fact.  However,  the 
large  truth  which  we  contemplate  is  this:  European 
nations  are  engaged  in  a  desperate  struggle  of  the  primi 
tive  sort  that  endeavors  to  show  not,  through  reason, 
which  is  right,  but,  through  force,  which  is  strongest. 
The  dilemma  is  clear;  either  the  issues  of  Europe  should 
have  been  submitted  to  reason:  or,  if  they  were  issues 
that  were  irrational  to  begin  with,  so  that  reason  could 
not  solve  them,  they  should  never  have  been  allowed  to 
prevail  to  the  extent  of  causing  the  international  anarchy 
which  is  Europe's  situation  at  the  present  time.  Thus, 
in  either  case,  the  European  struggle  represents  a  denial 
of  the  reign  of  reason  in  civilization, —  the  fundamental 
truth  for  which  the  American  democracy  has  stood  both 
nationally  and  internationally. 

Furthermore,  the  European  conflict  violates  the  prin 
ciple  of  reason  in  civilization  through  the  fact  that  it 
indefinitely  injures  and  retards  that  international  co 
operation  in  intellectual  endeavors  which  has  been  one 
of  the  most  signal  expressions  of  the  civilization  of  the 
last  fifty  years.  Science,  yea,  culture  of  all  sorts  had 
become  an  achievement  of  the  co-operation  of  all  races 
and  of  all  nations.  One  of  the  visible  expressions  of 
this  cultural  co-operation  was  to  be  found  in  the  existence 
of  the  numerous  international  congresses  and  inter 
national  journals,  through  which  the  leading  thinkers  of 
all  peoples  interchanged  their  thought  and  gained  untold 
inspiration.  For  the  time  this  is  a  thing  of  the  past; 
and  it  will  be  years  before  this  cordial  international 

[in 


AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 

co-operation  is  re-established.  The  destruction  of  the 
complex  system  of  economic  interchange  is  disastrous 
enough:  but  the  destruction  of  the  spiritual  sympathy 
and  the  common  cultural  ideals  of  mankind  is  infinitely 
worse;  for,  after  all,  the  former  is  the  expression  of  the 
latter. 

In  view  of  this  assault  upon  the  supremacy  of  reason 
in  civilization  America's  message  to  Europe  is  direct  and 
unequivocal.  In  terms  of  our  own  democracy  and  its 
appeal  to  reason,  Americans  should  convince  themselves 
and  the  rest  of  the  world  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as 
a  logic  in  history:  that  no  question  is  settled  until  it  is 
settled  rationally  and  in  accordance  with  righteousness 
and  justice:  that  might  without  right  is  futile,  since  if  a 
question  is  settled  by  might  alone,  it  will  arise  to  confront 
civilization  in  some  form  even  more  crucial  than  before, 
to  demand  settlement  by  intelligence  and  not  by  force. 
Thus  indirectly  the  American  people  are  constrained  to 
feel  that  part  of  the  solution  of  Europe's  age-long  diffi 
culties  is  the  gradual  institution  among  the  people  of 
those  efficient  auxiliaries  of  reason,  free  speech  and 
universal  suffrage, —  in  short,  democracy.  For  the  more 
democracy  comes  to  itself,  the  more  is  it  opposed  to 
the  war  system:  since  the  war  system  is  itself  opposed 
to  democracy's  reason  and  moreover  is  utterly  against 
the  fundamental  interests  of  the  common  man.  De 
mocracy  is  essentially  antithetical  to  war,  and  war  is 
essentially  incompatible  with  the  genius  of  democracy. 

In  the  first  place,  war  and  despotism  go  hand  in  hand. 
The  spirit  and  principles  of  war  are  thoroughly  despotic. 
Even  a  democracy  is  transformed  into  a  qualified  des 
potism  in  times  of  war.  "With  war,"  says  John  Quincy 
Adams,  "comes  a  full  power  over  the  whole  subject, 

[12] 


even  of  slavery.  It  is  a  war-power;  and  when  your  country 
is  actually  in  war,  Congress  has  power  to  carry  it  on, 
and  must  carry  it  on  according  to  the  laws  of  war;  and 
by  those  laws  a  country  has  all  its  laws  and  institutions 
swept  by  the  board  and  martial  law  takes  the  place  of 
them.  Peace  is  essential  to  our  prosperous  or  permanent 
freedom.  Almost  every  republic  in  the  world  has  fallen 
a  victim  to  war;  and  if  our  liberties  are  ever  lost,  they 
will,  in  like  manner  be  cloven  down  by  the  sword.  The 
soldiers  even  of  Washington,  urged  him  in  a  moment  of 
passion,  to  assume  the  sceptre;  had  he  been  almost  any 
other  man,  he  would  have  seized  the  occasion  to  raise 
for  himself  a  throne  upon  the  ruins  of  our  nascent  free 
dom;  and  though  that  incomparable  man  spurned  the 
offer,  yet,  must  war,  become  either  habitual  or  frequent, 
bring  on,  sooner  or  later,  such  exigencies  as  will  leave 
us  at  the  mercy  of  some  future  Caesar  or  Napoleon." 
This  may  seem  a  little  too  radical  an  opinion,  and  yet 
so  calm  a  judicial  mind  as  that  of  Judge  Jay  uttered 
itself  of  the  sentiment  that  "war  has  always  been  ad 
verse  to  political  freedom."  Madison  is  very  full  and 
emphatic  concerning  the  despotic  tendencies  of  war. 
"Of  all  the  enemies  of  public  liberty,"  he  says,  "war  is 
perhaps  the  most  to  be  dreaded." 

In  a  speech  in  the  Reichstag  on  February  9,  1876, 
Bismarck  made  this  significant  statement:  "The  mass  of 
the  people  has  usually  no  inclination  for  war.  The  torch 
of  war  is  lit  by  minorities,  or,  in  absolute  governments, 
by  rulers  or  cabinets."  If  this  is  true  —  and  it  undoubt 
edly  is  —  the  people  should  be  given  more  and  more 
of  a  share  in  the  power  to  decide  rationally  what  war 
decides  by  force, —  especially  as  it  is  also  true,  to  quote 
Bismarck  again,  that  "even  a  successful  war"  is  "in 

[13] 


itself  an  evil  and  from  which  peoples  must  be  saved  by 
the  science  of  statesmanship."  With  the  rise  of  democ 
racy  will  come  the  decline  of  secret  diplomacy,  which 
has  been  one  of  the  most  insidious  of  the  proximate 
causes  beneath  the  present  European  conflict.  For 
secret  diplomacy,  while  almost  indispensable  to  the 
war  system,  is  inimical  to  the  full  spirit  of  democratic 
institutions.  The  International  Peace  Bureau  at  Berne 
rightly  introduced  the  following  as  the  fifth  plank  of 
its  recent  program  for  international  order: 

"Diplomacy  in  all  countries  is  to  be  placed  under  the 
control  of  parliament  and  public  opinion.  Contentions 
which  are  not  made  public  and  to  which  the  people's 
representatives  in  all  the  countries  concerned  do  not  agree 
are  de  facto  null  and  void." 

But  America's  message  to  Europe  in  behalf  of  the 
reign  of  reason  is  not  expressed  merely  in  terms  of  words 
and  theories.  Our  country  itself  exemplifies  to  the 
world  in  its  Union  of  States  the  way  in  which  law  may 
be  made  to  replace  war.  The  states  of  our  Union  do 
not  settle  their  disputes  by  an  appeal  to  arms,  nor  are 
their  boundaries  bristling  with  fortifications.  The  appeal 
to  a  federated  reason  has  become  so  much  of  a  common 
place  in  this  country  that  the  average  citizen  hardly 
appreciates  what  a  significant  triumph  the  American 
Union  is  and  what  a  living  example  such  a  Union  is  of 
what  may  yet  be  achieved,  however  gradually,  in  the 
development  of  world  politics.  Let  no  individual  nation 
lose  its  national  integrity,  any  more  than  our  individual 
states  lose  their  integrity,  though  combining  for  purposes  of 
common  welfare.  But  let  the  world  learn,  as  we  have 
learned,  that  variety  and  unity  can  go  together, —  must 
go  together  if  the  highest  things  of  human  welfare  are 

[14] 


to  be  achieved.     Let  the  United  States  of  America  be 
followed  by  the  United  Nations  of  the  World! 

Ill 

The  second  great  principle  for  which  American  civili 
zation  has  stood  is  the  value  of  the  individual.  The 
securing  of  this  recognition  of  the  individual  has  been 
the  result  of  a  long  and  painful  struggle.  There  was  a 
time  when  the  individual  counted  for  naught;  when  the 
social  unit  was  everything  and  the  individual  nothing. 
There  was  little  initiative  accorded  the  individual,  even 
in  the  regulation  of  what  might  be  called  his  own  private 
affairs;  social  tradition  dictated  most  of  the  things  that 
he  had  to  do  and  how  he  was  to  do  them.  In  religion 
this  insignificance  of  the  individual  was  expressed  in  the 
denial  of  personal  immortality  and  in  making  it  the 
sum  of  religious  duty  to  lose  all  personal  desires,  and 
indeed  all  personal  identity,  in  God  as  the  Absolute  in 
whom  all  things  are  merged.  The  person  was  but  a  pass 
ing  wave  in  the  infinite  sea, —  an  illusion,  in  short.  In 
the  state,  this  idea  of  the  worthlessness  of  the  individual 
was  expressed  in  the  doctrine  that  the  individual  exists 
to  be  used  by  the  state  for  its  own  purposes:  it  was  a 
controversion  of  political  philosophy  to  suppose  that  the 
state  existed  for  the  individual. 

Out  of  the  suppression  involved  in  such  social  solidarity 
the  individual  has  gradually  emerged  and  claimed  his 
freedom  and  his  rights.  To-day  in  America  the  individual 
has  come  to  his  own  to  an  extent  never  before  found  in 
human  history.  No  longer  does  the  individual  exist  for 
society  or  for  the  state:  all  social  institutions,  including 
government,  are  conceived  of  as  justified  only  because 

[15] 


they  minister  to  the  welfare  of  the  individuals  for  whom 
all  social  organization  exists.  American  civilization  has 
insisted  more  and  more  that  the  individual  is  priceless: 
that  he  is  an  end  in  himself,  and  not  a  mere  thing  to  be 
used  as  a  thing.  Thus  the  great  watch-cries  of  American 
progress  have  been  Freedom  and  Equality;  the  freedom 
of  the  individual  to  realize  the  best  that  is  in  him  in 
terms  of  an  inexpugnable  personal  identity;  and  the 
equality  of  opportunity  which  carries  the  doctrine  of 
the  pricelessness  of  persons  to  its  practical  conclusion 
in  giving  every  soul  an  equal  chance  in  government,  in 
legal  recourse,  and  in  the  advantages  of  social  institutions. 
But  this  doctrine  of  the  value  of  the  individual,  the 
practical  realization  of  which  has  been  one  of  America's 
greatest  contributions  to  modern  civilization,  is  another 
principle  that  is  being  denied  and  imperilled  by  the  very 
existence  of  the  European  conflict.  For  the  war  system 
which  Europe  is  exemplifying  at  the  present  time  utterly 
ignores  the  individual  as  such  and  makes  the  nation  or 
race  the  unit  of  civilization.  In  the  first  place,  the  war 
came  into  being  not  only  without  the  initiative  of  the 
average  man,  but  probably  counter  to  his  fundamental 
wishes.  The  vast  armies  of  individuals  who  are  now  en 
gaged  in  killing  each  other  and  in  destroying  what  the 
average  man  has  built  were  not  consulted  with  regard  to 
the  issues  concerning  which  they  are  now  fighting;  they 
find  themselves  absolutely  ignored  as  individuals  and 
recognized  only  as  soldiers, —  as  so  much  material  to  be 
used  up  by  the  state  as  it  may  seem  fit.  Furthermore, 
at  this  stage  of  human  progress  the  war  system  itself 
involves  more  of  a  denial  of  the  rights  and  welfare  of  the 
average  individual  than  ever  it  did  before.  For,  while 
the  European  conflict  is  waged  in  terms  of  supposing 

[16] 


that  nations  and  races  are  the  real  units  of  civilization, 
the  fact  is,  as  Norman  Angell  has  so  well  pointed  out, 
that  all  the  things  fundamentally  worth  while  to  the  life 
of  the  average  person  have  become  international  and 
interracial  property  and  can  exist  only  in  terms  of  inter 
national  and  interracial  co-operation.  In  the  very  methods 
of  modern  warfare  the  individual  is  denied  as  never 
before:  for  these  methods  involve  the  use  of  a  sort  of 
machinery  of  slaughter  that  almost  ignores  individual 
bravery  and  prowess,  and  thus  gives  less  chance  for  the 
breeding  of  individual  heroism  than  has  been  true  in  the 
wars  of  the  past.  Thus,  no  matter  from  what  angle  one 
looks  at  the  European  conflict,  whether  it  be  from  the 
standpoint  of  politics,  economics,  ethics,  or  the  very 
conduct  of  the  war  itself,  the  rights  of  the  individual 
for  which  America  stands  are  ignored  or  repudiated. 

Thus  again,  America  has  an  unequivocal  message  to 
Europe,  and  calls  upon  Europe's  nations  to  realize  that 
there  is  no  excuse  for  any  function  of  government  save 
as  it  gives  the  greatest  number  of  individuals  the  chance 
to  achieve  self-realization  to  the  utmost:  to  realize  that 
the  true  difference  between  men  is  not  the  difference 
created  by  the  accident  of  nativity,  citizenship  or  race, 
but  is  to  be  found  in  their  variations  in  development 
toward  that  common  human  ideal  of  culture  and  of  wel 
fare  which  fundamentally  unites  all  men.  America  calls 
upon  Europe  to  substitute  for  autocracy,  equality;  for 
oppression,  freedom;  and  for  the  doctrine  that  the  indi 
vidual  is  a  thing  to  be  used,  the  great  truth  that  the 
human  soul,  with  its  body  —  every  human  soul,  with 
its  body  —  is  sacred  and  priceless  and  shall  not  be  vio 
lated  by  the  capricious  or  permanent  will  of  any  society 
or  of  any  government. 

[17] 


AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 

IV 

But  while  America  has  stood  for  the  priceless  value 
of  the  individual,  she  has  also  insisted  that  individuals 
are  social  by  nature,  and  that  they  have  not  only  indi 
vidual  rights,  but  social  responsibilities.  Now,  this  social 
nature  of  the  individual  seems  to  be  one  of  the  most  diffi 
cult  conceptions  for  even  enlightened  people  to  attain. 
It  is  easy  to  think  of  the  goal  of  civilization,  the  unit  of 
progress,  as  being  either  society  or  the  individual;  but  it 
is  not  so  easy  to  see  that  the  true  unit  of  progress  is 
neither  society  nor  the  individual  abstracted  from  each 
other,  but  both  taken  together.  The  danger  of  modern 
individualism,  even  as  exemplified  in  America,  is  to 
suppose  that,  since  the  individual  is  everything,  society 
is  nothing,  and  that  social  obligations  are  secondary  to 
individual  self-assertion.  The  fact,  is,  however,  that  no 
individual  is  anything  at  all  by  himself,  conceived  apart 
from  his  fellows.  Thus,  while  America  has  been  insist 
ing  upon  the  rights  of  the  individual,  it  must  never  be 
forgotten  that  this  individual  is  a  social  individual,  whose 
every  right  is  balanced  by  a  corresponding  obligation  to 
others.  In  other  words,  individuals  are  socially  inter 
dependent  in  all  the  interests  which  go  to  make  up 
human  welfare.  For  all  that  he  values,  the  modern  man 
must  rely  upon  the  social  institutions  of  which  he  is  a 
part.  His  education,  his  pleasures,  his  economic  pros 
perity,  his  religion,  his  culture,  all  are  social  in  their 
nature, —  unattainable  save  in  terms  of  co-operation  with 
his  fellow  man.  This  outward  social  co-operation,  as 
expressed  in  social  institutions,  is  merely  the  external 
expression  of  the  deep  and  eternal  truth  that  man  is 
social  by  nature  and  does  not  end  with  that  narrower 

[18] 


AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 

self  which  we  popularly  think  of  as  his  person.  The 
modern  man  can  well  put  to  himself  this  question :  Where 
do  I  end?  And  when  he  asks  this  question  intelligently, 
he  must  answer  it  by  acknowledging  that  he  involves, 
yea,  includes,  in  his  very  complex  life  and  in  his  far- 
reaching  actual  and  potential  interests,  all  that  has  been, 
is,  or  shall  be.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  every  person  is  an 
infinite  person.  In  one  sense  society  includes  him,  but  in 
another  sense  just  as  real  he  includes  all  society. 

Nothing  has  better  taught  us  this  absolute  interde 
pendence  of  all  things  human  than  modern  science,  which 
teaches  us  that  there  is  no  event  that  is  not  vitally  related 
to  every  other  event  in  the  universe  of  time  and  space. 
The  history  of  evolution  is  wrongly  read  if  it  is  supposed 
that  it  is  a  history  of  individual  struggling  with  indi 
vidual  for  the  survival  of  mere  individuals.  No,  the 
evolution  of  human  beings,  at  any  rate,  is  the  story  of 
the  increased  co-operation  of  individuals  in  their  common 
struggle  for  a  common  life,  a  common  welfare,  and  a 
common  ideal.  The  higher  one  goes  in  the  scale  of  evo 
lution,  the  more  one  finds  that  the  struggle  for  existence 
is  the  co-operative  struggle  of  all  human  society  for  the 
sake  of  the  realization  of  the  human  aspirations  of  the 
individuals  that  compose  it,  who  in  turn  grow  more  and 
more  altruistic,  even  for  the  sake  of  their  own  welfare, 
which  they  growingly  conceive  to  include  the  welfare  of 
all  men. 

This  age-long  struggle  for  the  socializing  of  the  indi 
vidual,  while  yet  maintaining  the  reasonable  liberty  of 
the  individual,  has  come  nearer  attainment  in  America 
than  anywhere  else.  While  insisting  upon  the  value  of 
the  individual  and  his  freedom,  Americans  have  always 
emphasized  the  fact  that  the  liberty  of  democracy  by 

[19] 


no  means  signifies  license.  No,  the  freedom  of  democ 
racy  is  a  social  freedom,  not  a  freedom  to  seek  one's  own 
regardless  of  others.  The  freedom  of  American  democ 
racy  means  the  freedom  of  every  man  to  seek  the  social 
goal,  his  larger  self,  in  accordance  with  his  own  reason, 
indeed:  but  voluntarily  and  freely  subject  to  the  reason 
of  all.  This  is  what  American  law  means.  Perhaps  no 
other  people  appeal  to  law  more  for  the  regulation  of 
the  social  order  than  do  Americans.  Their  liberty  is 
seemingly  curbed  on  every  side  by  the  laws  which  they 
have  put  upon  the  statute  books.  How,  then,  with  all 
this  restraint  of  law,  can  the  American  individual  be  said 
to  be  free?  He  is  free,  not  because  he  is  not  subject  to 
law,  but  because  this  law  is  not  legislated  upon  him  from 
without,  but  is  created  through  his  own  reason  and  his 
own  conviction  and  is  thus  his  own  product,  which  he 
freely  recognizes  as  a  just  restraint  for  the  sake  of  a  social 
order  which  he  freely  wants  and  for  which  he  is  freely 
responsible. 

But  again,  the  European  conflict  arises  out  of  a  con 
ception  of  society  which  utterly  ignores  the  social  respon 
sibilities  of  individuals  and  groups.  The  citizens  of 
certain  European  nations  may  not,  indeed,  be  so  short 
sighted  as  to  suppose  that  their  selves  end  with  their 
individual  persons;  but  there  is  an  overwhelming  tend 
ency  for  them  to  conceive  of  their  fundamental  interests, 
and  thus  their  fundamental  responsibilities,  as  ending 
with  the  boundaries  of  their  particular  nations.  But 
this  is  to  deny  the  entire  trend  of  the  development  of 
modern  civilization,  as  well  as  to  deny  the  social  nature 
and  responsibilities  of  national  groups  with  reference  to 
each  other.  Just  as  an  individual  can  never  circum 
scribe  his  social  nature  and  duties  within  any  arbitrarily 

[20] 


AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 

chosen  group  of  persons:  so  no  nation  can  say  justly  or 
logically  that  its  fundamental  being  and  responsibilities  end 
with  itself.  It  sins  against  the  social  nature  of  man  the 
moment  it  adopts  courses  of  action  for  mere  selfish  ag 
grandizement,  as  over  against  the  welfare  of  mankind  in 
the  large.  And  yet  the  European  war  is  the  product  of 
precisely  this  point  of  view:  that  a  nation  can  legitimately 
consider  itself  as  ending  with  its  own  national  boundary, 
and  that  it  may  be  pardoned  in  doing  almost  anything 
it  pleases  for  the  sake  of  a  narrow  self-interest  if  it  can 
justify  itself  by  force. 

Thus  again,  America  has  a  most  significant  message  to 
Europe  in  a  truth  which  America  herself  is  beginning  to 
exemplify  more  and  more  in  her  international  relations. 
This  message  is  that  the  ideals  of  nations  must  rise  above 
the  standpoint  of  mere  selfish  interest  and  must  cheer 
fully  and  insistently  reckon  with  the  fundamental  and 
permanent  welfare  of  other  nations.  It  is  not  to  be 
pretended  for  one  moment  that  America  herself  has  fully 
realized  this  new  international  vision  in  all  her  acts; 
but  her  relations  with  other  nations  in  recent  years 
have  more  and  more  exemplified  this  new  and  larger 
statesmanship.  Indeed,  truly  seen,  America's  policy  of 
neutrality  during  the  European  war  has  not  been  merely 
a  policy  of  self-interest,  although  it  is  partly  this,  perhaps 
largely  this.  But  there  is  another  reason  why  America 
should  remain  neutral, —  a  reason  which  has  arisen  in 
the  consciousness  of  a  number  of  the  best  leaders  of 
American  thought.  This  other  reason  is  that  by  keeping 
out  of  the  European  conflict  America  may  not  only  best 
serve  herself,  but  the  nations  now  at  war  and  the  world 
at  large.  She  is  anxious,  as  the  greatest  of  neutral  Powers, 
to  be  in  a  position  where  she  can  not  only  aid  Europe 

[21] 


in  arresting  the  present  conflict  sooner  than  might  other 
wise  be  the  case:  but  where  she  can  aid  Europe  to  a  swift 
recovery  after  the  war  is  over,  in  the  meantime  preserv 
ing  for  her  the  arts,  the  sciences,  the  culture,  which  for 
the  time  are  retarded  and  imperilled  by  the  European 
struggle. 

May  the  time  soon  come  when  not  only  the  true 
American  citizen,  but  the  enlightened  European  nations, 
shall  realize  that  there  is  only  one  liberty  of  nations  and 
races  as  well  as  of  individuals:  the  liberty  which  is  thor 
oughly  social, —  the  liberty  of  each  nation  to  seek  the  inter 
national  goal,  in  accordance  with  the  reason  of  each  nation, 
indeed,  but  voluntarily  subject  to  the  revision  of  all. 


Another  thing  for  which  America  has  stood,  although 
she  has  scarcely  premeditated  it,  is  a  cosmopolitan  cul 
ture:  a  culture  which  shall  not  be  narrow  and  provincial, 
but  which  shall  be  the  product  of  the  commingling  of 
the  best  cultures  of  all  nations  and  races.  While  it  may 
be  that  civilization  has  not  been  thoroughly  conscious  of 
its  trend,  still  the  tendency  has  been  progressively  towards 
an  increased  interchange  of  the  ideas  and  ideals  of  all 
peoples.  Here  in  America  this  free  interchange  of  the 
culture  of  all  races  has  been  best  exemplified:  so  that 
American  civilization  is  to-day  not  so  much  a  civiliza 
tion  co-ordinate  with  the  restricted  civilizations  of  other 
countries,  as  a  synthesis  of  all  the  various  cultures  of  the 
earth.  From  all  peoples  America  has  received  her  in 
tellectual  contributions:  we  have  welcomed  equally  the 
best  ideas  of  Slav,  Teuton,  Latin  and  Anglo-Saxon.  A 
concomitant  of  this  intellectual  hospitality  has  been  the 

[22] 


doctrine  of  the  equality  of  practically  all  races  under 
the  American  institutions  of  society  and  government. 
This  American  civilization  represents  the  world  in  minia 
ture,  and  we  have  gained  so  much  by  this  free  inter 
change  of  cultures  that  we  have  come  to  lay  less  and  less 
stress  upon  differences  of  race  and  to  recognize  that 
every  race  has  its  valuable  and  permanent  contribution 
to  that  which  makes  modern  civilization  worth  while. 

But,  once  more,  the  European  war  is  based  upon  prem 
ises  which  are  utterly  antagonistic  to  the  American  point 
of  view.  For  from  across  the  seas  we  hear  the  continual 
insistence  that  one  culture  is  so  ineffably  better  than 
another  that  it  deserves  to  prevail,  even  to  the  destruc 
tion  of  every  other  culture  in  the  world.  That  one  culture 
should  try  to  obtain  predominance  over  the  rest,  not 
through  its  intellectual  and  moral  superiority,  but  through 
expertness  in  killing  and  destroying,  is  paradoxical  enough; 
but  it  is  still  more  paradoxical  that  any  culture  worthy 
the  name  should  deny  co-operation  and  help,  even  for 
the  sake  of  its  own  development,  to  the  other  cultures, 
which  are  themselves  also  the  result  of  long  ages  of  striv 
ing  toward  ideals  valuable  and  indispensable  to  the  race. 

America  cannot  look  upon  this  provincial  conception 
of  culture  passively.  Indeed,  many  Americans  are  not 
at  all  sure  that  any  solution  of  European  difficulties  is 
to  be  found  in  a  final  segregation  of  races  in  terms  of 
separate  national  integrities:  for  this  might  mean  only 
an  intensification  of  both  racial  and  national  antipathies, 
the  existence  of  which  has  been  one  of  the  main  causes 
of  the  European  conflict,  and  the  perpetuation  of  which 
may  be  the  cause  of  further  strife.  But  whatever  the 
American  people  may  say  with  regard  to  racial  pride 
and  that  racial  civilization  which  is  its  motive  and  ideal, 

[23] 


AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 

the  sum  of  our  message  to  Europe  in  this  regard  is  to 
be  found,  not  in  mere  words,  but  in  example.  For  in 
the  New  World  there  has  never  been  experienced  any 
insurmountable  difficulty  through  the  policy  of  a  free 
interchange  and  blending  of  racial  ideals;  and  the  result 
in  our  component  American  life  is  a  sufficient  proof  of 
the  wisdom  of  supposing  that  civilization  is  not  made 
poorer  but  richer  through  the  free  commingling  of  the 
contributions  of  all  races  and  nations.  To  deny  the 
practical  triumph  of  this  policy  is  to  deny  American  civil 
ization  in  its  totality.  America  can  hardly  stand  by  and 
see  this  —  one  of  her  most  cherished  ideals  of  what  a 
sane  civilization  means  —  trampled  under  foot  by  an 
anachronistic  race  prejudice  and  a  self-defeating  racial 
selfishness. 


VI 

What  are  the  immediate  things  that  America  can  do 
to  bring  about  a  new  world  order  in  which  the  outgrown 
war  system  shall  find  no  place? 

First  of  all,  even  at  this  time  we  are  doing  one  mo 
mentous  thing.  For,  in  the  very  midst  of  the  European 
war,  America  has  been  negotiating  with  over  thirty 
nations  a  form  of  treaty  which  will  be  most  significant 
as  a  means  of  minimizing,  if  not  of  obliterating,  the  chief 
causes  of  war.  I  refer  to  those  treaties  which  provide 
that  all  disputes  of  every  nature  whatsoever,  to  the 
settlement  of  which  previous  arbitration  treaties  do  not 
apply  in  their  terms,  or  are  not  applied  in  fact,  shall, 
when  diplomatic  methods  of  adjustment  have  failed,  be 
referred  for  investigation  and  report  to  a  permanent 
international  commission.  The  nations  bound  by  these 

[24] 


treaties  agree  not  to  declare  war  or  begin  hostilities 
during  such  investigation  and  before  a  report  is  submitted. 
The  treaties  specify  that  the  report  of  the  commission 
shall  be  completed  within  one  year  after  it  shall  declare 
its  investigation  to  have  begun.  Although  all  the  con 
tracting  parties  reserve  the  right  to  act  independently 
after  the  report  is  submitted,  it  is  believed  that  a  year's 
time  will  have  the  effect  of  "sober  second  thought"  on 
all  nations  and  will  prevent  an  outbreak  of  the  precipitate 
sort  which  plunged  Europe  into  war. 

The  inauguration  of  these  treaties  is  one  of  the  most 
important  measures  ever  undertaken  to  safeguard  the 
common  interests  of  nations  against  the  blind  arbitra 
ment  involved  in  the  war  system.  Secretary  of  State 
Bryan  has  pointed  out  clearly  three  advantages  that  will 
accrue  from  the  adoption  of  these  peace  commission 
treaties.  First,  "it  secures  an  investigation  of  the  facts; 
and  if  you  can  but  separate  the  facts  from  the  question 
of  honor,  the  chances  are  a  hundred  to  one  that  you  can 
settle  both  the  fact  and  the  question  of  honor  without 
war."  Second,  such  an  investigation  "gives  time  for 
calm  consideration  ....  A  man  excited  is  a  very  dif 
ferent  animal  from  a  man  calm,  and  questions  ought 
to  be  settled  not  by  passion,  but  by  deliberation.  .  .  . 
If  we  can  but  stay  the  hand  of  war  until  conscience  can 
assert  itself,  war  will  be  made  more  remote."  The  third 
advantage  of  such  investigation  is  that  "it  gives  oppor 
tunity  to  mobilize  public  opinion  for  the  compelling  of 
a  peaceful  settlement.  ...  If  time  is  given  for  marshal 
ing  the  force  of  public  opinion,  peace  will  be  promoted." 

Another  thing  that  the  United  States  may  do  in  re 
sponse  to  an  ever-growing  public  opinion  is  to  call  a  con 
ference  of  the  neutral  nations  of  the  world,  not  only  for 

[25] 


the  purpose  of  protecting  neutral  rights  and  interests 
during  the  European  conflict,  but  to  look  forward  to  a 
basis  of  permanent  world  peace  and  to  give  the  world 
an  example  of  how  the  conception  of  international  co 
operation  may  be  made  practical.  Whether  the  United 
States  shall  undertake  to  call  such  a  conference  depends 
entirely  upon  the  progress  of  events  which  no  man  can 
foresee.  It  is  quite  evident,  however,  that  in  the  hands 
of  the  United  States,  as  the  greatest  of  neutral  Powers 
rests  a  signal  obligation  to  the  other  neutral  nations  for 
the  maintenance  of  international  law  and  the  guaran 
teeing  that  civilization  shall  be  protected,  so  far  as 
possible,  from  the  effects  of  the  anarchic  situation  now 
prevailing  in  the  Old  World. 

Through  all  that  America  shall  do  beckons  the  ideal 
of  international  democracy:  a  democracy  where  the 
rights  of  every  nation  shall  have  a  voice,  and  yet  where 
the  rights  of  no  one  nation  shall  be  achieved  through  the 
ignoring  of  the  rights  of  others:  a  democracy  of  nations 
in  which  the  small  nations  shall  be  guaranteed  their 
integrity  with  the  same  surety  as  the  larger  nations 
guard  their  own  integrity  as  sacred  and  inviolable.  We 
cannot  afford  to  see  the  smaller  nations  perish  merely 
because  they  cannot  marshal  instruments  of  destruc 
tion  so  rapidly,  extensively,  and  efficiently  as  the  world's 
larger  states.  If  history  has  taught  us  anything  with  re 
gard  to  the  sources  of  civilization,  it  is,  as  Vice-Chancellor 
H.  A.  L.  Fisher  says,  that  "almost  everything  which  is 
most  precious  in  our  civilization  has  come  from  small 
states,  the  Old  Testament,  the  Homeric  poems,  the 
Attic  and  the  Elizabethan  drama,  the  art  of  the  Italian 
Renaissance,  the  common  law  of  England."  With  the 
ideal  of  this  sort  of  an  international  democracy  in  mind, 

[26] 


the  American  people  must  realize  that  its  achievement 
is  to  be  attained  largely  through  the  persistent  and  self- 
sacrificing  leadership  of  the  world's  greatest  democracy,— 
the  democracy  which  we  ourselves  have  built  and  only 
through  whose  principles  of  reason,  equality,  and  free 
dom,  international  democracy  can  be  attained. 

Having  in  mind  some  such  mission  for  America  in  a 
coming  world-reconstruction,  Norman  Angell  recently 
urged  the  following: 

"That  America  shall  use  her  influence  to  secure  the 
abandonment  by  the  powers  of  Christendom  of  rival  group 
alliances  and  the  creation  instead  of  an  alliance  of  all 
the  civilized  powers  having  as  its  aim  some  common 
action  —  not  necessarily  military  —  which  will  constitute 
a  collective  guarantee  of  each  against  aggression." 

This  is  only  one  expression  out  of  many  that  might 
be  chosen  from  the  great  thinkers  of  various  countries 
indicating  that  the  world  is  looking  more  and  more  to 
our  own  country  for  leadership  in  the  solving  of  the 
international  problems  which  confront  our  civilization. 

VII 

The  only  thing  that  could  defeat  America's  leadership 
for  the  achievement  of  a  new  world  order  is  a  conversion 
of  the  American  people  to  the  belief  that  the  great  lesson 
of  the  European  war  is  for  America  seriously  to  enter 
into  the  Old  World  competition  in  armaments:  a  com 
petition  which  has  been  the  menace  of  Europe  for  the 
last  fifty  years  and  which  culminated  in  the  present  con 
flict.  That  the  American  people  will  actually  be  con 
verted  to  such  a  reactionary  and  futile  program  is 
unbelievable.  And  yet,  a  persistent  agitation  is  being 

[27] 


AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 

waged  for  such  a  program,  motived  by  fear  of  whatever 
nations  may  be  the  European  victors;  by  feelings  of  so- 
called  patriotism,  however  mistaken;  by  the  life-long 
ideals,  thoroughly  honest,  of  those  in  military  and  naval 
circles;  and  by  the  vast  interests  of  those  who  manu 
facture  munitions  of  war  and  who  are  engaged  in  the 
same  competition  for  business  and  the  protection  of  their 
capital  as  is  any  business  man.  This  agitation  is  pressed 
largely  in  the  name  of  our  supposed  "unpreparedness" 
against  attack.  We  are  told  that  our  coasts  are  defense 
less,  our  army  small  and  inefficient,  and  our  navy  woe 
fully  inadequate.  It  is  urged  that  to  strengthen  our 
military  preparedness  need  not  mean  the  cultivation  of 
a  militaristic  spirit.  Any  policy  of  aggression  or  con 
quest  is  disclaimed.  The  sole  motive  of  increasing  our 
army  and  navy,  it  is  said,  is  the  common-sense  one  of 
putting  our  country  in  a  position  where  it  may  be  thor 
oughly  capable  of  defending  itself  against  its  foes. 

Let  us  not  question  for  one  moment  the  sincerity  and 
the  patriotism  of  those  who  wish  America  to  increase 
her  military  efficiency.  Certainly,  it  is  a  trying  time  in 
the  history  of  the  world:  a  time  in  which  it  is  exceedingly 
difficult  to  read  aright  the  progress  of  events.  Further 
more,  there  is  not  a  single  American  citizen  who  does 
not  want  his  country  adequately  defended  against  prob 
able  attack.  But,  before  we  embark  upon  any  military 
program  of  great  magnitude,  it  might  be  well  for  us 
thoroughly  to  realize  a  few  significant  truths. 

First  of  all,  in  order  to  plan  a  naval  program  which 
shall  be  definite  and  practical,  we  must  ask  in  all  serious 
ness  who  is  likely  to  attack  us.  It  is  quite  evident  that 
the  amount  of  our  preparation  is  entirely  dependent 
upon  this,  since  it  is  quite  clear  that  we  intend  no  aggres- 

[28] 


AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 

sion  ourselves.  Who,  then,  is  likely  to  attack  the  United 
States? 

Military  experts  do  not  seem  to  have  any  unanimous 
opinion  on  this  subject.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
they  cannot  be  unanimous:  for  no  one  can  foretell  future 
events,  much  less  the  events  that  depend  upon  the  present 
uncertain  character  of  international  relations.  Indeed, 
it  is  this  very  point  that  is  most  urged  by  those  who 
are  advocating  military  preparedness:  we  do  not  know 
who  will  strike,  or  when.  It  might  be  Japan,  we  are 
told;  it  might  be  Germany;  indeed,  it  might  be  even 
(ire.-il  I.rihiin.  The  oilier  <l;iy  I  listened  lo  1  he  congress 
man  who  has  been  most  prominent  of  all  in  the  recent 
agitation  for  America's  preparedness.  Unequivocally,  he 
urged  that  adequate  preparedness  means  preparation 
against  a  possible  attack  from  Great  Britain.  Certainly, 
if  we  are  to  enter  the  armament  competition  with  right 
good  will  and  with  the  purpose;  of  preparing  ourselves 
against  all  possible  contingencies,  we  must,  with  char 
acteristic  American  thoroughness,  be  able  to  meet  suc 
cessfully  the  attack  of  any  nation  of  the  world.  If  the 
military  program  is  to  be  practical  at  all,  this  is  precisely 
what  it  must  mean. 

But,  now,  suppose  we  adopt  this  as  our  program.  We 
are  to  prepare  against  war  with  Great  Britain.  Just 
what  does  this  mean?  We  certainly  must  fortify  our 
3,840  miles  of  Canadian  frontier,  for  no  military  expert 
can  possibly  doubt  that  Canada  would  be  made  one  of 
the  strategic  bases  of  operations  on  land.  We  must 
make  our  army  large;  enough  and  efficient  enough  to 
withstand  any  invasion  over  this  frontier.  We  must 
thoroughly  fortify  our  extensive  coast  line  on  the  Atlantic 
and  on  the;  Pacific.  We  must  increase  our  navy  to  the 

129] 


point  where  it  is  equal  to,  if  not  better  than,  Great 
Britain's  navy.  There  must  be  no  guess-work  about  it. 
Great  Britain's  policy  has  been  two  keels  to  one:  and 
even  this  is  thought  by  many  Englishmen  to  be  not 
enough.  Well,  let  our  naval  program  call  for  two  keels 
to  one.  Let  us  at  last  be  thoroughly  prepared. 

But  there  is  one  little  question  that  emerges  right  at 
this  point.  Can  we  ever  catch  upf  Suppose  that  Great 
Britain's  navy,  for  instance,  remained  precisely  as  it  is 
for  a  period  of  years.  Suppose,  too,  that  we  built  battle 
ships  as  fast  as  we  could.  How  long  would  it  take  to 
create  a  navy  as  efficient  as  that  of  Great  Britain,  let 
alone  a  navy  so  much  larger  that  there  would  be  no 
question  of  its  superiority?  And  with  such  a  naval 
program  before  the  world,  known  to  be  directed  against 
Great  Britain  (and  of  course  everybody  would  know  it), 
what  would  Great  Britain  be  doing  all  this  time?  Would 
she  suddenly  abandon  her  own  traditional  naval  policy? 
Or,  would  she  add  to  her  navy  as  fast  as  she  could  to  meet 
the  new  international  situation  which  we  had  created? 
It  is  inconceivable  that  she  would  not.  If  she  did 
this,  then  how  long  would  it  take  for  America  to  catch 
up?  We  could  not  catch  up  at  all  on  the  basis  of  the 
relatively  meager  program  advanced  by  our  agitators 
for  national  defense.  And  on  any  program  at  all  we  could 
not  catch  up  in  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  years. 

But  suppose  we  could  catch  up  in  fifty  years.  Would 
Great  Britain  wait  for  us?  Why  should  she,  when  now, 
according  to  the  agitators  for  defense,  we  are  totally 
unprepared  against  her?  No,  it  seems  reasonable  to  sup 
pose  that  if  the  United  States  announces  to  the  world 
her  entrance  into  the  armament  competition  and  a 
policy  of  building  up  a  greater  military  strength  than 

[30] 


Great  Britain's,  so  that  she  will  be  able  to  defeat  Great 
Britain  in  any  possible  war  with  her,  the  latter  will 
surely  strike  during  the  long  period  of  preparation  and 
not  wait  until  her  case  is  hopeless.  If  you  reply  that 
there  is  no  danger  of  any  attack  from  Great  Britain 
anyway,  and  that  Great  Britain  is  really  our  ally, 
then,  of  course,  the  whole  question  of  any  new  mili 
tary  program  of  magnitude  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  falls  with  the  fears  in  terms  of  which  it  was 
urged. 

But  how  about  Germany?  Is  not  Germany  likely  to 
attack  us,  especially  if  she  emerges  as  victor  from  the 
European  war?  Well,  of  course,  anything  is  possible: 
but  very  few  indeed  who  make  a  study  of  international 
relations  think  that  there  is  any  probability  that  Ger 
many  would  attack  us,  even  supposing  she  is  victor, 
and  these  few  are  almost  unanimous  in  placing  the  degree 
of  probability  extremely  low.  The  fact  is,  there  are  no 
probabilities  at  all  sufficient  upon  which  to  base  a  huge 
military  program.  They  are  so  slight,  if  they  exist  at 
all,  that  our  efforts  should  rather  be  directed  to  eliminat 
ing  them.  And  the  easiest  way  to  eliminate  them  is 
surely  not  by  aiming  a  naval  program  at  Germany. 
The  best  way  is  to  continue  to  cultivate  a  cordial  friend 
ship  and  understanding.  There  is  still  less  reason  to  dis 
card  this  policy  now,  when  Germany,  no  matter  whether 
she  wins  or  not,  will  be  in  no  condition  to  begin  a  war 
of  aggression  upon  the  best  friend  that  she  has  among 
the  nations.  No,  the  burden  of  proof  still  lies  with  those 
who  base  an  anachronistic  military  program,  involving 
billions  of  dollars  and  a  certain  unsettling  of  international 
friendships,  upon  a  speculation  so  wild  that  it  transcends 
in  its  visionary  character  any  so-called  dream  that  any 

[31] 


AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 

peace  advocate  ever  had  in  his  most  somnolent  moment. 
If  it  can  be  proved  that  there  is  a  real  probability  that 
Germany  will  attack  us,  and  that  no  diplomacy  of  an 
honorable  sort  could  remove  the  probability,  then  let  us 
regretfully  abandon  the  American  way  and  spend  our 
billions  in  preparing  a  military  program  against  her  with 
whom  we  have  co-operated  so  long! 

And  if  this  remote  thing  happens  —  that  we  are  ever 
obliged  to  be  "prepared"  on  a  grand  scale  against  the 
attack  of  any  nation  —  let  us  at  the  same  time  work 
all  we  can  to  do  away  with  such  an  abominable  inter 
national  situation  as  is  based  upon  the  futile  doctrine 
that  any  great  national  interest  is  really  subserved  by 
murderous  aggression  or  that  any  international  problem 
can  be  permanently  or  rightly  settled  by  other  than 
rational  means.  This  is  what  a  sane  peace  movement 
means :  relentless  war  upon  the  war  system, —  but,  in  the 
meantime,  of  course,  whatever  defense  is  truly  necessary 
against  any  genuine  peril  to  our  country's  integrity  which 
the  war  system  may  create. 

But  amid  all  such  suspicions  which  are  so  likely  to 
result  in  militaristic  hysteria,  let  us  remember  the  main 
fact  that  many  American  thinkers,  as  well  as  many 
European  thinkers,  see  that  if  there  is  any  one  thing 
which  the  European  war  has  proved,  it  is  that  the  sort 
of  diplomacy  which  relies  upon  the  never-ending  com 
petition  in  armaments  is  a  diplomacy  which  leads  directly 
toward  war,  not  away  from  it.  America  will  not  be  so 
anachronistic  as  to  adopt  the  European  way.  Our  strong 
est  defense  against  Great  Britain  and  Germany  and  Japan 
is  our  friendship,  our  mutual  understanding,  which  results 
in  a  constructive  international  co-operation  rather  than 
a  destructive  international  rivalry.  In  this  day  and 

[32] 


age  it  is  not  a  question  whether  nations  want  to  co-operate 
or  not.  Economic  conditions  alone  have  become  so  com 
plexly  interrelated  that  nations  will  more  and  more  be 
forced,  in  self-defense,  to  understand  each  other  and  work 
with  each  other  for  common  international  interests, 
rather  than  to  destroy  those  interests  through  a  mutual 
attempt  at  annihilation.  This  is  the  great  lesson  of  the 
European  war,  and  there  is  absolutely  no  doubt  that 
Europe  will  be  compelled  for  the  sake  of  its  very  life  to 
read  that  lesson  in  such  a  way  that  she  will  henceforth 
see  the  utter  futility  of  adopting  barbaric  methods  for 
the  solving  of  civilized  questions  in  an  age  which  has 
entirely  reorganized  the  financial  and  cultural  relations 
between  peoples.  The  facts  of  this  financial  and  cultural 
interrelation  were  in  existence  before  the  war  began:  but 
it  was  necessary  that  the  peoples  of  the  world  have  a 
thorough  consciousness  of  these  facts  before  the  facts 
themselves  could  count  efficiently  in  the  achievement  of 
a  new  international  situation.  This  consciousness  is 
growing  every  day.  America  can  help  it  to  become  a 
conviction  by  her  own  international  policy.  She  is  at 
the  parting  of  the  ways.  America  can  follow  Europe 
and  adopt  an  international  outlook  now  fast  becoming 
obsolete  even  with  Europe  herself:  or  America  can  help 
to  lead  Europe  to  a  new  internationalism  and  a  new 
world  order,  based  upon  the  new  and  unquestioned  facts 
of  the  new  international  life  that  has  arisen  during  the 
last  half-century,  together  with  its  new  international 
obligations  and  ideals.  Either  America  will  adopt  the 
European  way,  or  Europe  will  adopt  the  American  way. 
Which  shall  it  be?  More  than  we  realize,  it  depends 
upon  America's  own  far-sightedness. 

[33] 


VIII 

In  Washington  is  the  marble  palace  of  the  Pan  Ameri 
can  Union.  This  building,  without  doubt  the  most  beau 
tiful  in  our  capital  city,  is  a  significant  symbol  of  the 
new  internationalism  as  exemplified  in  the  friendship 
and  co-operation  of  the  twenty-one  American  republics 
whose  diplomatic  representatives  at  Washington  meet 
there  every  month  rationally  to  discuss  their  common 
interests  and  common  ideals.  The  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States  is  ex  officio  Chairman.  The  purpose 
of  the  conferences  is  to  develop  and  conserve  "peace, 
friendship,  and  commerce"  among  these,  all  the  inde 
pendent  nations  of  the  Western  Hemisphere.  Through 
these  conferences  the  peoples  represented  are  rapidly 
achieving  a  mutual  understanding  which  they  could 
have  attained  in  no  other  way, —  certainly  not  through 
mutual  fear  and  suspicion  and  a  diplomacy  backed  by 
competitive  armaments.  The  activities  of  the  Pan 
American  Union  are  already  so  various  and  far-reaching 
that  it  would  require  an  entire  book  to  describe  them. 
It  points  the  only  practicable  way  to  permanent  inter 
national  peace:  for,  as  its  efficient  Director  General, 
John  Barrett,  lately  remarked  to  me,  "The  greatest 
achievement  of  the  Pan  American  Union  is  the  gradual 
growth  of  understanding  and  friendship  between  the 
republics  of  the  Western  Hemisphere;  and  it  is  chiefly 
through  such  a  friendship  that  we  shall  gain  any  genuine 
constructive  co-operation  and  any  permanent  peace." 

Only  the  evening  before,  Secretary  of  State  Bryan  had 
expressed  the  same  thought  to  me  in  different  language. 
"Not  through  mutual  fear  will  peace  come  to  the  world," 
he  said.  "You  remember  the  words  of  the  angels'  song, 

[34] 


'peace  on  earth';  the  very  next  phrase  of  their  song 
gave  the  true  condition  of  peace  on  earth,  'good  will 
toward  men!' ' 

Let  the  Pan  American  Union  be  followed  by  a  Pan 
European  Union.  If  such  a  conference  of  the  European 
nations  had  been  in  the  habit  of  meeting  in  some  Euro 
pean  capital  during  the  last  fifty  years,  with  the  same 
sincere  desire  for  peace  and  friendship  as  is  being  evinced 
by  the  Pan  American  Union,  it  is  extremely  unlikely 
that  there  would  have  been  a  European  war. 

Let  us  look  forward,  indeed,  not  only  to  a  Pan 
European  Union,  but  to  a  Pan  World  Union! 


[35| 


PAMPHLET  SERIES 


ON 


THE  NEW  INTERNATIONALISM 


BY  JAY  WILLIAM  HUDSON 

PROFESSOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  MISSOURI 
DIRECTOR  EDUCATION  DEPARTMENT,  MASSACHUSETTS  PEACE  SOCIETY 


Published  by  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society 


1. 

2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 


WHAT  is  THE  NEW  INTERNATIONALISM? 
THE  ARITHMETIC  OF  WAR 
AGENCIES  FOR  PROMOTING  WORLD  ORDER 
A  PRACTICAL  INTERNATIONAL  PROGRAM 
AMERICA'S  INTERNATIONAL  IDEALS 


These  pamphlets  have  been  prepared  especially  for 
those  who  wish  a  comprehensive  statement  in  simple  lan 
guage  of  what  the  International  Peace  Movement  of 
to-day  means.  They  are  particularly  adapted  for  Reading 
Circles. 


Single  copies,  five  cents.       Price  in  quantities  on  application 


THE  MASSACHUSETTS  PEACE  SOCIETY 
31  BEACON  STREET,  BOSTON 


HBERI<ELEY  LIBRARIES 


M522602 


1*70 


;:    -v     -     -  '  •• 


• 


